THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: TheFuriousWombat on 01 Oct 2009, 22:26
-
...if their top 200 albums of the decade list is compared to ours, I see quite a few comparisons.
take a look: http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7706-the-top-200-albums-of-the-2000s-200-151/
In case you don't care to read it all, the top 10 albums are:
10. The Avalances - Since I Left You
9. Panda Bear - Person Pitch
8. Sigur Ros - Agaetis Byrjun
7. The Strokes - Is This It?
6. Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica
5. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
4. Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
3. Daft Punk - Discovery
2. Arcade Fire - Funeral
1. Radiohead - Kid A
thoughts on the list overall? It's not great but it could be worse. A lot of these albums probably do deserve to be in the top 200. Of course, only indie-rock/pop and some hip-hop is really represented so obviously a ton of music is being ignored but that's to be expected I suppose. I think, on the whole, it could be a lot worse.
-
I thumbed through the whole list and quite honestly, it's very respectable. But really, what it boils down to when you take on listing something as massive as the "Best albums of the 2000s" is personal taste, and my taste is pretty well-represented.
This makes me wonder what my top 10 would be.
-
5. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
WARNING WARNING OBLIGATORY HIP-HOP ALBUM TO TRY AND CLAIM CULTURAL RELEVANCE BEYOND THE REALM OF SKINNY WHITE GUYS WITH GLASSES
-
I have enough trouble narrowing down ten albums per year so when we were nominating for our list I sat it out.
Honestly there's nothing surprising about this list and there's nothing surprising about ours. The moderating effect of a group voting process means any contentious outliers get left in the dust and what we're left with is safe choices that near enough everybody can agree on.
EDIT: Actually reading the whole list from 100 it seems that is exactly what has happened, a lot of interesting and unexpected picks in the upper numbers, with things getting progressively more cliché and safe as you head downwards.
-
5. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
WARNING WARNING OBLIGATORY HIP-HOP ALBUM TO TRY AND CLAIM CULTURAL RELEVANCE BEYOND THE REALM OF SKINNY WHITE GUYS WITH GLASSES
Shrug, i am a skinny white guy (with glasses!) that doesn't listen to a whole lot of hip-hop, and it's still hard to deny how excellent that album is. I think it made it's spot based on merit rather than "insert token hip-hop album" here. On the other hand, Supreme Clientele doesn't make any sense to me, but I guess this is because of the aforementioned skinny-white-guy-ness.
-
5. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
WARNING WARNING OBLIGATORY HIP-HOP ALBUM TO TRY AND CLAIM CULTURAL RELEVANCE BEYOND THE REALM OF SKINNY WHITE GUYS WITH GLASSES
Shrug, i am a skinny white guy (with glasses!) that doesn't listen to a whole lot of hip-hop, and it's still hard to deny how excellent that album is.
I think it made it's spot based on merit rather than "insert token hip-hop album" here.
do you think you are in the best position to judge that if you don't listen to much hip-hop
-
He may not listen to it, but he may have given it fair chances? I mean, if he likes Jay-Z, it's probably safe to say he's given other popular and/or critically acclaimed albums a chance.
Then again I may just be talking out of my ass, but you seem awfully confrontational.
-
do you think you are in the best position to judge that if you don't listen to much hip-hop
Why not? Are you suggesting that someone has to know a lot about a genre of music before being qualified to judge it on it's merits?
-
/not being trolled :mrgreen:
-
That isn't trolling, that is just the general dickery level of this forum, you get used to it.
-
Why not? Are you suggesting that someone has to know a lot about a genre of music before being qualified to judge it on it's merits?
A list of the best albums of the decade isn't judging an album on it's own merits it is judging an album on its merits compared to the sum total of all the music you have heard released in that decade, which in this decade included an amazing diverse and interesting range of hip-hop, of which the Blueprint is a tiny snippet.
I don't think not having listened to much hip-hop in one of its most fertile periods is a good excuse for largely excluding it from this list as a genre.
-
it is judging an album on its merits compared to the sum total of all the music you have heard released in that decade
Exactly, it's not a list of the best hip-hop albums of the decade.
-
it is judging an album on its merits compared to the sum total of all the music you have heard released in that decade
Exactly, it's not a list of the best hip-hop albums of the decade.
but by putting the Blueprint in the top ten of this list and having it be the only hip-hop album they by extension declare it the best hip-hop album of the decade by a pretty impressive margin, which I am disagreeing with. That is my opinion! What is your problem with that?
I guess I also resent that arguably the most powerful taste maker in music journalism obviously doesn't think the output of hip-hop in this decade was worth half a shit as much as The Blueprint, which in a good mood I might declare "A pretty good album"
-
/not being trolled :mrgreen:
you're right you weren't being trolled, someone was disagreeing with you (there is a difference)
-
but by putting the Blueprint in the top ten of this list and having it be the only hip-hop album they by extension declare it the best hip-hop album of the decade by a pretty impressive margin, which I am disagreeing with. That is my opinion! What is your problem with that?
The way you are presenting it, I would think.
-
sorry but when you are talking about a website that once posted a video of a monkey drinking its own urine as a review of an album I don't really feel like I have any obligation to actually be pleasant about it or the people defending it.
-
like any list of 200 albums could be the best 200 in anything ever except maybe circumstances in which ≤200 records were produced by the band/genre/whatever
also the blueprint was to the 2000s what illmatic was to the 90s so i have like no problem with it being that high on the list? except of course that it's the only record by a black person on there
-
Lil Wayne is on there
Also Wu Tang clan
-
also the blueprint was to the 2000s what illmatic was to the 90s so i have like no problem with it being that high on the list? except of course that it's the only record by a black person on there
which mostly what I take exception to. It was not even Jay-Z's best album this decade but it was his most iconic and I understand people vote for icons in this kind of thing more than actual musical quality.
Also before anyone criticises me for presenting my opinions in a brash and/or snide manner I want you to carefully browse your post history on this forum and make sure you are not living in a very thin glass house because there are very few people here not guilty of the same.
-
the blueprint isn't his best album of the decade? i mean, black album is fine and all, but really?
-
but by putting the Blueprint in the top ten of this list and having it be the only hip-hop album they by extension declare it the best hip-hop album of the decade by a pretty impressive margin, which I am disagreeing with. That is my opinion! What is your problem with that?
I don't remember disagreeing with you on your objections to The Blueprint's place in the muscial canon nor it's status as a "token" pick on that list. My problem is with your contention that you have to know a lot about hip-hop to judge if a hip-hop album is any good.
EDIT: ...in relation to all music in all genres made this decade.
-
whoa heavy words, also illmatic is nas' crowning achievement in several respects and what he's been spending his entire career trying to recapture so i think considering that jay-z is currently on his third attempt at making the blueprint it's apt in more ways than one
my argument is not that it is merely iconic, it's that it's iconic and exemplary and i don't want to write a huge dissertation on the blueprint cause dozens of other dudes have already done it for me
we can step to my rap game, though. if that is truly what you desire
-
I don't remember disagreeing with you on your objections to The Blueprint's place in the muscial canon nor it's status as a "token" pick on that list. My problem is with your contention that you have to know a lot about hip-hop to judge if a hip-hop album is any good.
I don't remember making that contention in the first place and if you think I did it is because you have misinterpreted what I am saying.
the blueprint isn't his best album of the decade? i mean, black album is fine and all, but really?
Black Album is an appalling piece of shit and his first in a series of albums riding the coat-tails of Blueprint. No I'm talking about American Gangster which I personally think is a more engaging album as a whole.
whoa heavy words, also illmatic is nas' crowning achievement in several respects and what he's been spending his entire career trying to recapture so i think considering that jay-z is currently on his third attempt at making the blueprint it's apt in more ways than one
my argument is not that it is merely iconic, it's that it's iconic and exemplary and i don't want to write a huge dissertation on the blueprint cause dozens of other dudes have already done it for me
we can step to my rap game, though. if that is truly what you desire
I didn't really mean to talk shit about Illmatic to be honest, and I'd be interested in your analysis of the album as a whole because I feel it is made up excellently produced tracks with some sick rhymes but it doesn't hold together as well as something like Vol. 2 (which I think it is fairer to compare it to in terms of coherency rather than a concept album like American Gangster, before someone jumps on me about that) and as a result doesn't stand up to repeat listens as well
-
do you think you are in the best position to judge that if you don't listen to much hip-hop
Shit man where DID I get that impression from
-
but by putting the Blueprint in the top ten of this list and having it be the only hip-hop album they by extension declare it the best hip-hop album of the decade by a pretty impressive margin, which I am disagreeing with. That is my opinion! What is your problem with that?
I don't remember disagreeing with you on your objections to The Blueprint's place in the muscial canon nor it's status as a "token" pick on that list. My problem is with your contention that you have to know a lot about hip-hop to judge if a hip-hop album is any good.
EDIT: ...in relation to all music in all genres made this decade.
wait I did say this and you made a half-assed attempt to answer my concerns when I fleshed my opinion out more thoroughly. When I addressed those concerns you didn't answer me you just restated your original point so maybe you could try a little harder to have a discussion instead of being a dick about it
-
thank you for editing your post to actually reflect what you were saying after I had read it and was replying to it it
awesome way to have a civil discussion
Also before anyone criticises me for presenting my opinions in a brash and/or snide manner I want you to carefully browse your post history on this forum and make sure you are not living in a very thin glass house because there are very few people here not guilty of the same.
-
anyway maybe I shouldn't be posting on this board if the way I have opinions here is enough to make a dude I have drunkenly sung Decemberists on a crowded bus with be a complete cock to me so I'm going to stop posting thanks bye QC (y'all still rad)
-
I don't like that record very much but as a non-white person i feel like my opinions may be coloured differently from the norm. :wink:
-
this whole page has basically been abrupt_record_scratch.mp3
-
also the gift and the curse is kind of... bloated? it's a double album for chrissake. and it has this embarrassment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReYA8pK3DI) on it
-
thank you for editing your post to actually reflect what you were saying after I had read it and was replying to it it
awesome way to have a civil discussion
I uh... I think you're reading a bit too much into my intentions there dude.
I am sorry for attempting to remove ambiguity from my statement, and you're right that does make me a cock.
Look, it seems to me that you're basically getting (perhaps pre-emptively) defensive about your opinions on the relative quality of The Blueprint. I don't give a shit about what you think about The Blueprint, dogg!
I very specifically took issue with you for calling out that single person earlier in the thread, that is all.
-
Man they put the Argument at 45 fuck those guys
-
Things that make me happy about this list:
William Basinksi
Stars of the Lid
Sigur Ros (twice)
Joanna Newsom - Ys
Liars- Drums not Dead
Godspeed - LYSFLAtH
Fennesz
The Top 10 is pretty decent
Things that make me sad about this list:
Merriweather Post Pavillion at #14 (are you fucking kidding?!?) - In fact, Animal Collective being on the list three times
You Forgot it in People being at #23. It's better than that!
Fleet Foxes in the top 50. Guys, this album is SO boring. It's some dudes who sing well and that's it.
Grizzly Bear - Veckatamist in the top 50. See above.
Vampire Weekend being on the list at all. Really? Vampire Weekend? That pseudo-Saweto-bullshit-indie-frat rock?
Dirty Projectos - Bitte Orka at #58. This just came out a few months ago and it's nothing special to say the least yet somehow it's one of the 60 best albums of the decade already?
-
it is judging an album on its merits compared to the sum total of all the music you have heard released in that decade
Exactly, it's not a list of the best hip-hop albums of the decade.
Quality Control, game, set, match.
-
I really liked that argument, guys. I would rank it 5th on my top 200 arguments of this decade.
-
I was pretty pleased with the Albums that were included, my only beefs were with the Rankings. Probably my two most played albums from this decade are The Thermals' The Body, The Blood, The Machine and The Dismemberment Plan's Change
They were both on the list at 186 and 97 respectably, but I think TBTBTM got robbed, Top 50 fo' sho' yo.
-
I am kinda surprised that Source Tags & Codes was all the way up at 100. Not because I think it's that great or anything, but didn't those asshole give it a 10.0?
-
Wow, I have actually heard 20 of these albums. That's a solid 10%! I even liked about 17 and a half of them. I might even have included some of them in a similiar list of my own devising.
That said of course, to my ear this list is utterly dreadful. Justin Timberlake? What the fuck? I know it's hip to like shitty stuff but just stick to like, Rock Me Amadeus or something in future. Though I suppose I can understand in the context that pretty much everything on the list is just slightly nichey mass-marketed pop/rock music so I suppose a lack of pretension is cool. Also, Mastodon and Queens of the Stone Age? Way to show how you don't know shit about anything. And I still can't stand the fucking ridiculous wankfest this site has over Radiohead. I've had more interesting bowel movements than Radiohead. I guess I had never heard of some of the stuff, which is odd, I normally at least know the names of all these bands by now.
-
That got me interested, actually. I have heard in full 115 of these albums. After counting I would say, of the ones I've heard, I genuinely like 71 of them. At that rate, one could assume I would like 124 of the full 200, or around 62%. Doesn't mean I agree with their place or even presence on the list but not so bad, that. The point is, there's a ton of good music, I think, on this list.
-
I'm surprised Sound of Silver didn't rank higher than it did on that list.
It bothers me that Merriweather Post Pavillion is ranked so high. That album has a few great songs, but as a whole is a big ball of boring.
And is it just me, or is Leviathan the only metal album on there? What the hell, Pitchfork?
I supposed all said and done, that list is like everything else related to Pitchfork: a lot of it is good, some of it is great, and much of it is utter bullshit.
-
yeaa I like maybe two or three songs from merriweather but most of them are either way too long or not as fun as any of the songs on strawberry jam.
also 200 is way too long of a list to care about. I understand a lot of music came out in the past ten years but come on, keep your lists like 25 or under, please, because I don't want to spend more than a minute or two skimming over them. maybe do best of the decade lists individually by genre or something, and then you don't have to compare apples to oranges either.
-
there better be some houston rap in this top 200 or i'm gonna bust heads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIBYF_3_7Fk)
i'm almost SURE underground kingz is in there and honestly it's the only contender for the blueprint's spot i can think of off the top of my head
-
oh yeah purple haze was like 115 or something
-
I am pleased Nite Versions isn't on that list.
-
Hey.
Hey.
Fuck you.
The addition of Merriweather Post Pavillion and Vampire Weekend on this list just goes to show for me, that best of lists for decades should not be compiled in that decade.
-
the vampire weekend thing basically gives you a bunch of reasons to hate them and then says "oops but they're catchy" but unfortunately your mileage may vary with how catchy you find them so owned, tom ewing. i like you but owned
-
that best of lists for decades should not be compiled in that decade.
time allows for all the crap to be washed away.
-
Man, this is the sort of thing that alienates me, from the Daft Punk review:
When a generation looks back and tries to catch a fuzzy hold of the music that made them happy this decade, Daft Punk's will be top of the list.
There's only one song on that album I can even stand listening to sober.
-
Does the review specify which generation? I mean I'm sure there's going to be an early-twenty-first-century dance music revival a few decades from now.
-
Since I don't think I've ever actually listened to that record when not playing Carcassonne I don't think it's my generation. Don't get me wrong, it's a great board game and all, but I am pretty sure it hasn't been the fun highlight of this decade.
-
Guys, I'm sorry but you weren't doing fun correctly in this decade. Better luck next year, I guess?
-
Does the review specify which generation? I mean I'm sure there's going to be an early-twenty-first-century dance music revival a few decades from now.
I thought Daft Punk-derivative Electro House was already a thing.
Honestly, I think the list is pretty boring and from the standpoint of someone who really loves electronic music it feels staid. It seems like the rock and pop albums on the list sort of serve to impress upon the reader the diversity of those genres, highlighting some albums that didn't exactly take the world by storm when they came out. But looking for electronic music it's peculiarly zeitgeist-y. Aside from maybe Third from Portishead every electronic album is one that announced its niche to the world. Daft Punk's up there with Electro House, I knew Burial would be there representing dubstep, 2 Many DJs is there. It's pretty cursory. Which is to say, I echo Brett's sentiment that this list is made from a certain perspective, with interesting genres of music left at the margins.
-
10. The Avalances - Since I Left You
9. Panda Bear - Person Pitch
8. Sigur Ros - Agaetis Byrjun
7. The Strokes - Is This It?
6. Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica
5. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
4. Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
3. Daft Punk - Discovery
2. Arcade Fire - Funeral
1. Radiohead - Kid A
I think it's funny that 8 of the Top 10 are from 2000 or 2001*. I suspect that says something about the way the internet has changed the rate and depth of music lovers' audio consumption.
Back in the beginning of the decade, file sharing was just starting to make an impact on music distribution outside of college campuses, and there weren’t many well-known sources of record reviews (only dead-tree mags like Rolling Stone, etc. or the spearhead online reviewers like Pitchfork). There were still relatively few tastemakers who were setting musical trends and not a whole lot of ways that people could hear and share more obscure music.
Contrast with today, where anyone can easily seek out dozens of review sites catering to a range of specific tastes, and have practically immediate access to any of that music through file-sharing sites. I think what you're seeing in that list is a breakdown of coherent musical zeitgeists near the beginning of the decade. Pre-2002, the "good" albums were well agreed-upon, at least so much so that they came out on top of Pitchfork's aggregate scoring system. Post-2002, individual tastes were given the freedom to splinter so much that only two albums, Funeral and Person Pitch, had wide enough consensus to make it into the Top 10 of the 00’s.
*I'm counting Yankee Hotel Foxtrot as an ‘01 album because that’s when the band put it up on the internet. Albums #11, 12 and 13 are also from 2000 or 2001.
-
I literally had that exact same thought process when I saw the dates of the top 10.
-
Only problem I actually have with the list is A Ghost is Born not even being on it.
Otherwise, decent p4k list.
-
Also come on guys I bought Is This It when it first came out but is it really that good?
-
Yeah it is.
-
It's not.
-
It's really not that good at all.
-
It's pretty okay.
-
I am neither for or against Is This It.
-
List threads are so funny with everyone thinking their opinions are relevant to other people's opinions. :mrgreen:
-
Well someone's feeling superior today.
-
Anyone else notice how there's not a single British Sea Power album on this list? Anyone else got a problem with that?
-
Heh.
Daft Punk at number three when they gave it a 6.4.
-
Anyone else notice how there's not a single British Sea Power album on this list? Anyone else got a problem with that?
Yes. Yes, I do take offence at that. The Decline Of should've been in there somewhere.
-
I give Pitchfork's list a 6.3, and their ability to pretend that they have broad musical taste a 2.
(zing)
-
I gave that joke 6.8 when it was on The Onion
-
ep: 5.1
cupcakes: 8.9, best new baking
-
Well someone's feeling superior today.
Yeah I had a good day! :-D
It's just hilarious that people think a list of opinions is 'wrong'. Its even more hilarious in those voting list threads.
It's all in good fun though :-)
-
I think you need to find a better sense of humor
-
Only problem I actually have with the list is A Ghost is Born not even being on it.
Otherwise, decent p4k list.
If that made my list, it'd have every single other Wilco album wayyyyy ahead of it.
-
even Sky Blue Sky? or the new record?
-
Only AGIB, YHF, Sky Blue Sky, and Wilco: The Album, are this decade.
Of those 4, only two have any place on an albums of the decade list.
AGIB should have been in the 20's or something.
Also Exploding Hearts should have been higher.
-
AGIB is better but the self-titled is a huge improvement over Sky Blue Sky.
-
Sku Blue Sky, one of the best Eagles records of the decade?!
-
I dunno, I like the record The Eagles made a fair bit.
-
I'm going to ignore all your Wilco talk for a moment because I just cannot get into them. But regarding Pitchfork's list, I would like to say that if I had been making the list I would have included the Silver Jews' Bright Flight (2001) on there somewhere. For some reason it's the Silver Jews album that always flies under the radar, but I think it's their best outside American Water. It's a fantastic collection of songs and in the middle of it there's "I Remember Me", which has to be one of the most heartbreaking and beautiful songs of the decade.
So there.
-
That list has made me realise why I don't read Pitchfork. I don't think one single record on there would make my top ten.
As for the Hip Hop, it always annoys me that publications which should champion new & exciting music seem to drop the ball when it comes to a huge number of genres.
(My statement is general to avoid using the dreaded "I" word)
-
I am curious to see your top ten
-
even Sky Blue Sky? or the new record?
Yes, Emilio. I'm also apparently one of those very small minority of people that think Summerteeth was awesome.
-
Everyone loves Summerteeth, it is a great record.
-
Summerteeth was 99 thought, wasn't it?
-
definitely not in the 00s
-
I'm going to ignore all your Wilco talk for a moment because I just cannot get into them. But regarding Pitchfork's list, I would like to say that if I had been making the list I would have included the Silver Jews' Bright Flight (2001) on there somewhere. For some reason it's the Silver Jews album that always flies under the radar, but I think it's their best outside American Water. It's a fantastic collection of songs and in the middle of it there's "I Remember Me", which has to be one of the most heartbreaking and beautiful songs of the decade.
So there.
This is something I can get behind. I love every single Silver Jews album, though.
-
Prof, was that aimed me? If so. I don't do top tens, only uber specific top fives. It's more fun that way. But I may just have Botch's We Are The Romans 10 times to give you answer.
-
Prof, was that aimed me? If so. I don't do top tens, only uber specific top fives. It's more fun that way. But I may just have Botch's We Are The Romans 10 times to give you answer.
I love you.
Figuratively.
-
Yeah that was directed at you Eliza, mainly because I thought you would be able to find at least one album out of the 200 that were on the list. Buuuuuuuuut seeing as how that genre seems to not be very well liked by Pitchfork, I can see why you wouldn't be able to find a one.
-
I'm not sure any of pitchfork's selections would be in my top 10. Top 50 certainly.
-
I think you need to find a better sense of humor
Like yours? mr completely unamused man? :-D
-
Yeah, I didn't see anything that is top 10 material for me, either. Lift Your Skinny Fists might be on the top 50, same with Songs For the Deaf, but I don't remember much else on there that I liked at all (I didn't listen to all of them, obviously).
-
Prof, was that aimed me? If so. I don't do top tens, only uber specific top fives. It's more fun that way. But I may just have Botch's We Are The Romans 10 times to give you answer.
Be My Internet Girlfriend
-
There are records I like & even love on that list prof, just not TOP TEN love, (Jens Lekmen, the Hold Steady, Interpol, M.I.A, QOTSA, Lightening Bolt, Fugazi, Trail Of Dead, Girl Talk, The Walkmen are ones I remember.)
Also: *blushes & giggles a little* We are the Romans came out in '99, but I will count it as it's within the space of ten years & I believe that counts as within 10 years which is technically what a decade is...
dec⋅ade
/ˈdɛkeɪd; Brit. also dəˈkeɪd/
–noun
1. a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
2. a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
3. a group, set, or series of ten.
Origin:
1425–75; late ME < MF < LL decad- (s. of decas) < Gk dekad- (s. of dekás) group of ten, equiv. to dék(a) ten + -ad- -ade 2
-
This list is like an old sitcom...
There's basically a cast of hipster music/white guys, the occasional rap album/black guy, and one metal album/that weird guy who hangs out in your neighborhood.
Way to be musically diverse guys.
-
I looked through the list and was sorely tempted to just go ahead and insert my own selections whenever something by The Streets came up.
-
5. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
WARNING WARNING OBLIGATORY HIP-HOP ALBUM TO TRY AND CLAIM CULTURAL RELEVANCE BEYOND THE REALM OF SKINNY WHITE GUYS WITH GLASSES
+1 to this. You'd think a website that prides itself on being "indie" would look past the mainstream of Hip-Hop.
-
They didn't even look past the mainstream for ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T FIT A REALLY SPECIFIC MO, frankly.
-
I looked through the list and was sorely tempted to just go ahead and insert my own selections whenever something by The Streets came up.
Every time I hear that guy's voice I though up a little in my mouth.
-
They didn't even look past the mainstream for rock, frankly.
Eh, not to be that guy that takes flippancy seriously, but hasn't Pitchfork defined what mainstream is for awhile now? Because that's sort of a ridiculous statement considering actual mainstream stuff (as defined by top 40 radio) is generally absent from this list as far as rock is concerned. Nickelback is not here, nor is Bruce Springsteen. Actually I haven't listened to top 40 radio in awhile, so maybe they've been playing Antlers and Arcade Fire and I just don't know what I'm talking about.
Really I'm going to have to agree with Brett and say that the genre that's most "mainstream" on their list is hip hop, as it largely consists of big hitmakers, particularly Jay-Z and Lil' Wayne. The farthest out they go is Ghostface Killah.
-
yeah this list is "big indie." it's all about perspective.
-
Actually I haven't listened to top 40 radio in awhile, so maybe they've been playing Antlers and Arcade Fire and I just don't know what I'm talking about.
I dunno about the US but a lot of this stuff gets played on the radio in the UK.
-
I haven't heard the Antlers, but I have heard one of the more popular stations out here play Arcade Fire.
-
Top 40 radio isn't necessarily that great of a yardstick of mainstream awareness anyway since we're not in a world with only 3 tv channels anymore; between cable and the internet, you don't have to make a splash on the Tonight Show just to get your name out there. The Billboard 200 by its very nature can only show us a very thin slice of consensus.
-
Even on last.fm, which necessarily only shows a tiny slice of people from around the world, Arcade Fire have 1,155,590 unique listeners. They're pretty goddamn huge.
-
When I think "mainstream" I'm thinking of acts that book arenas, or are the type of bands that sound like they want to. Off the top of my head - Green Day, U2, Oasis, Jay-Z, Kanye West (who's on the list, isn't he?) the most recent American Idol winners, etc. etc.
Arcade Fire I think is probably in the same position R.E.M. found themselves in around the time of the late 80's - They were the most popular college radio act in America but it didn't quite fit to call them "mainstream". I mean, Springsteen likes them and Neon Bible was pretty popular but they haven't quite made their Automatic For the People yet. I'm wondering if it's even possible for a band to cross over from indie appeal to the big leagues the way they used to - The majors are pretty dumb at utilizing the internet. Otherwise, you can tell me that Animal Collective and BSS are mainstream but I really don't think they are - tastemakers just talk endlessly about them, and after awhile it seems like they're institutions when they're not. Feist has a bigger profile now than BSS proper does.
Radiohead's at #1, and they are admittedly pretty mainstream at this point. They've got a huge cult, but they're still big figures.
Even on last.fm, which necessarily only shows a tiny slice of people from around the world, Arcade Fire have 1,155,590 unique listeners.
Man, I don't know if Last.fm is the best gauge for audience. If your numbers jibe with mine (and Arcade Fire shows 900,000 or thereabouts right now. Is this real-time?) then Arcade Fire is more than half as popular as the Beatles are, and nearly twice as popular as Jay-Z. Granted Arcade Fire has wide appeal but as far as gauging the lay of the land goes, the internet tends to be really distorting. It's an echo chamber.
-
I wasn't saying it in terms of share, but in terms of popularity. On a service which is obviously not going to have every Arcade Fire listener ever, or even close, there are 1,155,590 listeners. That's a whole city of Arcade Fire listeners. That's four times the population of Iceland.
They're a pretty big band.
-
Though I mostly agree with Khar here, it does bear mention that an Arcade Fire fan is far more likely to have a last.fm than Dolly Parton fans.
-
I'd rather listen to Dolly Parton than Arcade Fire.
I may be wrong but recently magazines such as the NME & Kerrang or Metal Hammer even Rock Sound have failed to bring to light as many bands that aren't backed by huge PR machines. Which to me equates with being mainstream. But then I'm a dirty old DIY punk kid.*
I have said I don't read Pitchfork, but from that list I'm guessing the same is true. It's Pay to Play on paper/screen.
(*Who loves Dolly Parton.)
-
Top 40 is a wayyyyy better metric of what's mainstream since it's largely based on sales and actual airplay, far more accurate than the nebulous "they get played on the radio." Arcade Fire are "indie huge" but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, and if you think the Antlers are remotely "big" you've got a completely warped sense of perspective - acts in the Top 40 have millions more sales and listeners, whether their Last.fm charts show it or not.
Also - and I wanna stress this for the next time it gets brought up - Last.fm is an awful, awful metric for a band's popularity. The last time I had this conversation, we looked at Broken Social Scene and Green Day. The former band has a third of the latter's listeners on last.fm, but the latter has several gold records and has sold somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty or seventy million albums worldwide. Broken Social Scene don't even have a gold record in Canada. Last.fm is basically for people who care about Last.fm. It has no bearing on how popular an act actually is.
-
Over a million people listening to something anywhere is still crazy big though.
Also, a quick read of the Arcade Fire's wiki shows that Funeral is gold in several countries, including Canada, they've had top twenty singles in the UK, they've been on the cover of the Canadian edition of Time, MTV and NME named Funeral one of their top albums of the year, they've been on SNL...and it goes on. My suppositions are fairly good in this case, I think.
-
Gold in Canada is 50,000 records, and here the Arcade Fire aren't even as popular as the Tragically Hip. They're popular but to suggest that they're a household name is preposterous.
-
Like, what is the metric that we're using for "mainstream"? We're all aware here that there is an actual, real mainstream, with people who are rich as fuck from millions of record sales and they sell out shows to millions of people across North America, Europe and Asia, right? That's crazy big. Akon has sold more records than the Arcade Fire will probably ever press. Kanye West and Lady Gaga were going to tour, and they were probably going to play to more people than the ten best-attended Broken Social Scene shows put together.
People in the independent music community have this really bad habit of developing blinders when it comes to defining "popular." A million listeners? Like I said, The Tragically Hip have more listeners than that in Canada alone, and they've definitely sold more records than the Arcade Fire. I'm not going to dispute that a lot of people like the Arcade Fire, and I'm not going to dispute that, in their niche, they are a powerhouse. But a big niche is still a niche.
-
There is a difference between mainstream and megastar though. With people like Akon, Kanye West and Lady Gaga you're talking about the very biggest sellers. By the measure of the top 40 Arcade Fire are surely mainstream, Neon Bible spent months in the UK top 40 albums and debuted at number 2 (several places above new entries by Cascada and Russell Watson, hardly indie fare). Sure, they've never done better than a top 20 single but they're not the kind of band that shifts singles hugely anyway these days, so the big marketing push will be for the album. And it was big, I can still remember being surprised by the massive ads in Virgin since I thought they weren't all that big a band.
Coincidentally Neon Bible also debuted above The Very Best of Dolly Parton, one can only hope because most people have sense enough to own Jolene at least already. Either that or we're doomed as a species.
-
As long as people still (A) play "I Will Always Love You" at weddings, and (B) favour Whitney Houston's version over Dolly's pretty much perfect original, we're fucked.
-
Was wondering what y'all thought were the best online review sites for teh indie rock?
-
I learn about most of the music I listen to here honestly.
oh, and to a lesser degree last.fm
-
Tiny Mix Tapes
-
Tiny Mix Tapes
-
http://www.dieshellsuit.co.uk/ (http://www.dieshellsuit.co.uk/)
I'm biased though.
I think now with so many sites to listen to music on you can be your own reviewer. It's easy to give a band a quick listen.
-
the DFA Records webstore
http://dfa.hasawebstore.com/
-
here the Arcade Fire aren't even as popular as the Tragically Hip.
thank god
-
Tiny Mix Tapes
-
Tiny Mix Tapes is probably the best source for reviews out there. They have some great writers. Several times I've read a review of an older album, something I loved at the time I first heard it but hadn't listened to for a while, sometimes even a couple years, and I immediately had to go and play that album.
-
Tiny Mix Tapes is sometimes alright, but they are also responsible for such horribly misguided pieces as this: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/article2509,2509
-
There is a difference between mainstream and megastar though.
Okay now this is just getting ridiculous
-
Tiny Mix Tapes is sometimes alright, but they are also responsible for such horribly misguided pieces as this: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/article2509,2509
I may have played volleyball for that guy, once.
-
Tiny Mix Tapes is sometimes alright, but they are also responsible for such horribly misguided pieces as this: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/article2509,2509
Oh God I remember that fucking review. Ever since I've read it I've basically written off TMT as being anything other than shit. God reading it again is making my blood boil I swear I'm gonna punch the fucking computer.
-
You wrote off an entire website because you disagreed with the opinion of one person?
I think this is my main problem with people getting all up in arms over internet music review websites. They look at the site like it is one monolithic entity that is trying to force its opinion on you, but these sites are just groups of people who love music. So, Jonathan P doesn't like .22. Who fucking cares. Literally billions of people don't like .22. Sure, maybe he was being a little bit dismissive but it's not like a music review is supposed to be an authoritative source written on a monument about whether or not an album is good or bad. It's just some dick's opinion.
Edit: I'm not trying to harsh on you or anything, Chris. I am sorry that it probably came off that way.
-
Yeah, I don't really see what's got everyone all up in arms about that review. He didn't like the album. He explained why he didn't like the album. He made it clear that he wasn't pissing on the album just for fun. What do you want, a completely bland opinion free track-by-track descriptive account of the album?
-
People do and will though, I get hate mail, but then i 'm often an utter dick when I review stuff.
It's when you have a huge stack of CD's to review & half of them are samey toss bollocks it's gets a little hard to "Sounds like Biffy Clyro, only bad" in an interesting way.
(Really I've got 6 at the moment that I just don't know what to write as they are so BORING they aren't even bad.)
However I would like to add that My Father (A Journalist, a proper one who does news and that) always said it harder to write something nice than nasty so you should always try and find something, one thing positive to write about.
I do TRY & do that. But for bands that have put no effort in originality that can be hard.
Plus fuck everyone else, it's my opinion :D
-
That's what it generally is, but sometimes the press info sounds like something you'd really like, but is actually terrible...We do request which CD's we'd like to review.
-
Sure, maybe he was being a little bit dismissive but it's not like a music review is supposed to be an authoritative source written on a monument about whether or not an album is good or bad
For me, though, people do look at sites like Pitchfork and TMT and take their opinions as a full authority on music, when maybe listening to the damn thing for themselves probably would be a better barometer of whether they like it or not. Maybe my view is skewed and needs revision? Maybe my distaste for TMT based solely on that .22 review is very misguided and comes down to "we have differing viewpoints about what kind of music is worthy to be listened to". I mean, I did view TMT as a pretty reliable source of good music journalism before I saw the .22 review. Pitchfork has a fucking shitty review of SKWM's Blueblood and I still read it from time to time (though not for any actual musical opinion on anything I'd be interested, God no.)
I have a lot more to say about this but I've got to jet.
Edit: I'm not trying to harsh on you or anything, Chris. I am sorry that it probably came off that way.
It's cool dogg, I tend to be pretty irrational at times.
-
It's when you have a huge stack of CD's to review & half of them are samey toss bollocks it's gets a little hard to "Sounds like Biffy Clyro, only bad" in an interesting way.
"Sounds like Biffy Clyro"
-
I like the idea of just not reviewing things that you don't like.
Imagine a whole website or magazine full of just stuff that people really like.
I mean why not?
I don't mind reading negative reviews of albums I think are positive because they get me to think critically about why I like the albums in question. There's occasionally an offensively bad review, like the pulled Zaireeka review where the dude couldn't find three more friends with stereos, but even those have me mentally composing responses. It's not bad in any capacity to be confronted with an opinion you find contrary to your own, and it's not bad to talk about it with the person holding the other opinion even if the end result of the conversation will be that you are unable to change the other person's opinion.
Plus an entire magazine of this would be intensely bland. Cultural discourse is reliant on discourse, and the parts of culture that you don't like aren't going to go away just because you don't talk about it. And it's interesting to talk about.
-
If only we could get people to not take it so personally when other people disagree with them.
-
I get most of my music recommendations from these two blogs...
http://closetcurios2.blogspot.com/
http://cosmichearse.blogspot.com/
There's tons of shit you're guaranteed to not find anywhere else, with the added bonus of actual reviews/write-ups on the albums.
Yes, I've returned the discussion to where you can get good music recommendations.
-
Plus an entire magazine of this would be intensely bland. Cultural discourse is reliant on discourse, and the parts of culture that you don't like aren't going to go away just because you don't talk about it. And it's interesting to talk about.
Exactly. For an example of just how dull it can be, look at the now-defunct Plan B. Every time I picked up that magazine it seemed to be gushing over numerous artists with hardly any discussion of what they disliked. The end result was almost meaningless, since the lack of negative criticism resulted in a lack of critical engagement. Empty praise because you had nothing to compare it with. What I want from a review is a critical discourse with the piece of art in question, liking or disliking it can be a part of that but it isn't even necessary to bring that up. Much more interesting is what the reviewer thinks the piece is doing and what they see as being the ramifications of that.
-
I think part of why people get so upset at Pitchfork (maybe upset is the wrong word...) is that they do try and present the reviews as coming from one uniform entity. Reviewers seem to need to toe the line, and like the same albums that all the other reviews do, hate the same etc. This comes across very strongly in their best-of lists: they're not presented as based on voting, or whatever, but rather one distinct opinion from "Mr Pitchfork." I think that's why they attract a lot of vitriol - it becomes "Pitchfork hates this band/album" rather than "Joe Blow hates this band/album."
-
I don't think that's accurate, actually. The end-of-year lists are supposed to look definitive, but there's not much editorial control at Pitchfork (or most tastemaker sites, for that matter). A good example is the tepid review of Daft Punk's Discovery (http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2134-discovery/), which has been alluded to in this thread before. It got a pretty dismal 6.4, yet here it is, #3 on the best albums of the decade. If you look at their news stories on Daft Punk you see more evidence that the reviewer of the album didn't like it but a lot of other p4kers really did.
-
Not certain if they did it with this one, but typically they publish the writers' individual lists.
-
They usually do that in December or January if I remember correctly.
-
ok, thanks gang.